"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

Originally posted by R13sg0Okay, i understand. When do you think we will be able to make it law? It would make things easier for you against guys like me and the bible-nuts.
What proof do you need and where can you find it in your opinion? Can you expand a little on your views about this 'law'?

We'll be able to make it a law when it's no longer a theory. When we have a lock on how evolution works, then we call "law". Until then we should be conservative and call it "the theory of how evolution works". (And note, dear lurkers, that evolution is a fact, it's how evolution works that is still a theory.)

Show me the law and I'll comment on it. As we don't have one yet, we can only speculate. (And the Cardinals are playing, so my share of speculation would necessarily be brief.)

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
We'll be able to make it a law when it's no longer a theory. When we have a lock on how evolution works, then we call "law". Until then we should be conservative and call it "the theory of how evolution works". (And note, dear lurkers, that evolution is a fact, it's how evolution works that is still a theory.)

But then we really shouldn't call it the law of gravity, as our understanding of evolution is a lot better, than our current understanding of gravitation.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
We'll be able to make it a law when it's no longer a theory. When we have a lock on how evolution works, then we call "law". Until then we should be conservative and call it "the theory of how evolution works". (And note, dear lurkers, that evolution is a fact, it's how evolution works that is still a theory.)

But then we really shouldn't call it the law of gravity, as our understanding of evolution is a lot better, than our current understanding of gravitation.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Works for me. The use of "law" is something I use very carefully. How others chose to use it is up to them, as long as they're ready to explain their usage.

Originally posted by R13sg0
Yes. And is the only evidence we find for rapid sedimentation upright trees?

No?

I guess it's the case for every fossil. I believe it's a requirement for fossilisation. Not it can be rapid, but it must be rapid.

Is it? [Citation needed]

It's real and you asked me, so i delivered. I even gave the source earlier. And it matters because you uphold his general theory and conclusions, that he based almost solely on those facts.

No he didn't. And still, I fail to see the relevance of this for modern evolutionary synthesis.

Nice drawings, and i see some resemblance. I wouldn't use the phrase "really accurate" though. I could be mislead by the drawings, i could not by the pictures.

It really depends on the stage of the embryo. You also have to acknowledge that Haeckel didn't have X-ray scanners or MRIs or anything. They're really accurate for their time, and even today if you pick an MRI of an embryo of just right stage you'll see amazing resemblance to his drawings.

Be more precise in your answers. And it is the case for every radio isotope dating method. You can only come to a date if you compare your results with the current levels.

How can we know how much of the parent and daughter elements were present when the decaying started?

U-235 and U-238 provide a means to verify the assumption of how much of the parent and daughter elements the sample started with.

* Uranium's daughter element is lead. Common lead contains a mixture of four isotopes. Since the proportions of the lead isotopes are very nearly constant, lead-204, which is not produced by radioactive decay, can be used to accurately estimate the original quantities of lead-206 and lead-207. This provides an accurate estimate of the original daughter element..
* U-235 and U-238 have different half-lives. The comparison of the dates a sample gives using each of these elements provides further evidence that the initial assumptions were correct for this sample.

Potassium-Argon dating - Argon does not react chemically, so any found inside a rock is very likely the result of radioactive decay of potassium.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The most accurate test of the assumptions about the starting parent and daughter elements is to date the sample using multiple methods. Since the dating methods use different parent and daughter elements, it is highly unlikely that the sample could be contaminated in a way that would affect the different methods in such a way as to all give the same wrong date. Matching dates provide strong evidence that the initial assumptions were correct.

The following applies to minerals. It does not apply to some of the other techniques, such as Carbon-14 dating.

Minerals form by recognized chemical processes that depend on the chemical activity of the elements involved. The chemical behavior of an element depends on its size and the number of electrons in its outer shell. This is the foundation of the periodic table of the elements, a basic part of chemistry that has stood without challenge for a hundred and fifty years.

The shell structure depends only on the number of electrons the nuclide has, which is the same as the number of protons in its nucleus. So the shell structure doesn't change between different nuclides of the same element. K39 is chemically identical to K40; the only way we can distinguish between them is to use a nonchemical technique like mass spectrometry. (Note: It's true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can't distinguish between different nuclides.)

So the processes that are involved in mineral formation can't distinguish between nuclides. Sr86 atoms and Sr87 atoms behave identically when they bond with other atoms to form a mineral molecule. If there are ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the original magma melt, there will be ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the minerals that crystallize from that melt.
www.jwoolfden.com...


Isochron dating does not even require knowing the starting amounts, thus eliminating this criticism altogether.

There's your answer.

It's not a problem for me, personally, i believe it's a problem for evolution-theory. And we can tell by the fossils we found that it didn't evolve. Please, tell me what u think the explanation is for this fish not changing, with your view of the evolution theory.

It's not a problem. So you can tell by looking at a fossil what this fish was able to digest, or how deep it was able to dive, or what its immune system was like, can you? You know evolution does not simply mean "change of looks". And the explanation for not a lot of apparent evolution? There was no need for adaptation. This fish has been "perfect" for its niche which has remained the same for a long time.

Then again: a new species was the least i expected.

Then again you called E. coli a virus. So what exactly separates one species of bacteria from another? What kind of a change (if not ability to get energy from a new source or 70% faster rate of growth) counts as change of species in bacteria?

[edit on 10-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by R13sg0Okay, i understand. When do you think we will be able to make it law? It would make things easier for you against guys like me and the bible-nuts.
What proof do you need and where can you find it in your opinion? Can you expand a little on your views about this 'law'?

We'll be able to make it a law when it's no longer a theory. When we have a lock on how evolution works, then we call "law". Until then we should be conservative and call it "the theory of how evolution works". (And note, dear lurkers, that evolution is a fact, it's how evolution works that is still a theory.)

Show me the law and I'll comment on it. As we don't have one yet, we can only speculate. (And the Cardinals are playing, so my share of speculation would necessarily be brief.)

How nice to read some healthy caution in calling things laws.
The thing that intrigues me most in evolution is the question of how. I would like to present a bit of reading material, it's only two pages. It's a reflection of my personal view. Click here.

Originally posted by R13sg0
How nice to read some healthy caution in calling things laws.
The thing that intrigues me most in evolution is the question of how. I would like to present a bit of reading material, it's only two pages. It's a reflection of my personal view. Click here.

I'm a skeptic.

"Another is to say, “God did it,” which explains nothing even if it is true." Nice.

As for abiogenesis, have fun with that.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Your post is to long to make a nice quote tree. About the radio isotopes, thanks for that. I think we can cut out all the young earth debate now. And say that it's proven that the earth is very old. And i give you the last word about the other stuff that isn't in this post.

It's not a problem for me, personally, i believe it's a problem for evolution-theory. And we can tell by the fossils we found that it didn't evolve. Please, tell me what u think the explanation is for this fish not changing, with your view of the evolution theory.

It's not a problem. So you can tell by looking at a fossil what this fish was able to digest, or how deep it was able to dive, or what its immune system was like, can you? You know evolution does not simply mean "change of looks". And the explanation for not a lot of apparent evolution? There was no need for adaptation. This fish has been "perfect" for its niche which has remained the same for a long time.

Well then, how much did earth change, really in living environments. Right now we see more species in the same niche, and we have to assume that this was also the case millions of years ago. We know only 40 or so examples of living fossils. And we have to assume that every living creature is "perfect" for it's niche.
If a specie only depend on it's need for adaption to evolve, then isn't that against random mutation+natural selection = evolution?

I agree on the soft tissue part, but it doesn't mean we have to assume that evolution took place because it fit's the theory. It is just as likely that we are talking about the same fish with minor differences.

Then again: a new species was the least i expected.

Then again you called E. coli a virus. So what exactly separates one species of bacteria from another? What kind of a change (if not ability to get energy from a new source or 70% faster rate of growth) counts as change of species in bacteria?

When scientist start to call it E. Experimenta then usually we have a new specie. Believe me that they will be the first to admit they have created a new specie. There are humans who can hold their breath for 10 minutes, and walk over red hot rocks. Amazing abilities at best.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

I'm a skeptic.

"Another is to say, “God did it,” which explains nothing even if it is true." Nice.

As for abiogenesis, have fun with that.

I'm telling you: Beach sand experiment. Very easy to replicate. You can do it at home.

reply to post by R13sg0


"If a specie only depend on it's need for adaption to evolve, then isn't that against random mutation+natural selection = evolution?"

You're off on a wrong tack there. Natural selection is motivated by mutations, and produces evolution as a result.

Random mutations happen all the time. Most of them have no effect on the critter either way. Some of those mutations are beneficial. Those are the critters that are ever so slightly more successful. So more critters with the mutation show up in the next generation. And so on.

reply to post by R13sg0


You should read this

reply to post by rhinoceros


It's that current facts rule out a God that is "someone who can telepathically communicate with every human on the planet simultaneously, but won't do anything to help them."

I agree with that. I ieven agree with your link in the way how it attacks religions. I prefer a more scientific approach to a deity.
And just like disproving evolution won;t make a religion right, disproving religion doesn't mean there can't be a deity.
Atheism shouldn't be spread by evolutionists because they can't claim it based on their facts. Even Dawkins, when asked, didn't rule out a deity. Evolution is a blunt sword for an atheist.
I''ve taken an alternative route all my life, i think every human does it in a way, processing the information that they receive. Personally i've seen a lot of 'strange stuff' and i wanted a framework where i can put it in. A deity is needed from my perspective of life. I won't claim it is necessary for living your life. But if you want to comprehend everything that life can throw at you, then yes.
But science is more convincing then a life story, so i prefer a more scientific approach to a deity. It's not that i want to convince people, but if they want to convince themselves science makes it easier and there are certain finds that point to the direction of a deity. (And it won't conflict with the facts of evolution)

Originally posted by ShowMeEvil
The Big Bang is chewing gum for the lost and half intelligent design nutcases.

Something does not come from nothing!
PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD.

Well, except for the creator of course.

Originally posted by R13sg0I'm telling you: Beach sand experiment. Very easy to replicate. You can do it at home.

Not impressed. Dumbing down is not congruence. A sense of proportion is needed at times.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
IDers are conspiring to inject religion into schools under the guise of "science". Dover, Del., and the Evolution Wars in Kansas have shown this to be the case.

What I'm wondering is if they think the whole country is stupid enough to believe that ID is anything but a sham?

I dont agree with you here. The first argument I heard of intelligent design was FOR the existence of God. Pascal's watch argument. I personally believe it is a good argument, drawing upon the fine balance evident within the world. However, it is easily countered by saying:

Say the chance of a Universe like this coming about is 1/10000000000000000000000000000, before the Universe existed, matter etc. Time did not. Therefore, if you have an infinite amount of time, eventually the possibility, no matter how small. Will eventually come about.

Its a leap of faith at the end of the day.

Brad

reply to post by Toughiv


"Its a leap of faith at the end of the day."

Faith doesn't belong in the science classroom. It belongs in Sunday Schools, not Public Schools. I have no problem with anybody believing anything they want, but try and take the US back to the 17th Century and there will be a fight. I guarantee it.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Toughiv

 

"Its a leap of faith at the end of the day."

Faith doesn't belong in the science classroom. It belongs in Sunday Schools, not Public Schools. I have no problem with anybody believing anything they want, but try and take the US back to the 17th Century and there will be a fight. I guarantee it.

Hmmmmmm. Deep...very deep..indeed.

A long time ago ..in a galaxy far far away!!!

Talk about faith. Wow!!!

Do they show this type of video in classrooms and pass it off as faith ..a new religion?? Or do they by implication try to pass it off as science/faith.

How about another faith..Harry Potter??

Are they not coming under challange/controversy for this enviornmental religious movie they show in classrooms...what is it called???

You know...Al Gores Movie..

I think it is "An inconvenient truth"

Faith is indeed in the classrooms. Challanges to the faith are not tolerated. it is a closed shop.

Thanks,
Orangetom



[edit on 14-5-2009 by orangetom1999]

reply to post by orangetom1999


Star Wars and Harry Potter taught in the classroom. Now that's funny. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad that you even brought them up. Just how distorted a worldview is needed to think that was relevant?

Wait guys. What i am arguing is, science DOES NOT disprove religion! Please come back to me with any arguments you wish. I guarantee I will be able to give an equally valid answer.

When it boils down, there is not PROOF for or against the belief in a higher power. The arguments are 50/50. That is where the "leap of faith" comes into play.

If there were any more proof for or against, then we wouldnt truely have free will. There has to be a level playing field.

Relating "leap of faith" to harry potter or the such like is just an immature response.

Also, science is not fact. For example look at the Copernican Revolution. Newtonian laws of Gravity had errors. Science is "tried and tested" theories.

Science is just the observation of the natural world. Observing the way in which things appear to act according to laws of nature, then trying to explain the phenomona. (however u spl it lol )

Faith and Science can go hand in hand. I know you will come back with arguments. I hope to show you a way in which they can by responding.

reply to post by Toughiv


"Also, science is not fact. For example look at the Copernican Revolution. Newtonian laws of Gravity had errors. Science is "tried and tested" theories."

Science tries to explain the facts. Religion ignores the facts. Science attempts to develop explanations of why things happen. Religion tries to avoid explaining anything. Science evolves as we learn new things. Religion is stagnant.